Music Industry's Future Foretold in China? 398
sapphire writes "An article today in the International Herald Tribune provides a look at music piracy from the point-of-view of pop stars in China. China is a country forced to deal with the reality of unchecked piracy of digital media products. Will their experience lead to new business models for the world-wide recording industry?"
Much more readable... (Score:5, Informative)
China's artists not receiving royalties (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:China's artists not receiving royalties (Score:4, Interesting)
While major label artists may make a small amount per CD, you have to factor in the large number of sales of those albums.
For example, I've often heard the figure of 80 cents being a standard royalty per disc. If a million of those albums sell (not a big stretch for a star IMO), that's $800,000, or a nice chunk of change for each of four or five band members.
Re:China's artists not receiving royalties (Score:5, Insightful)
See Courtney Love does the Math [salon.com].
Re:China's artists not receiving royalties (Score:2)
This opinion is one I really haven't formed yet, so as I speak about Napster now, please understand that I'm not totally informed. I will be the first in line to file a class action suit to protect my copyrights if Napster or even the far more advanced Gnutella doesn't work with us to protect us.
She then goes on to praise file sharing after basically admitting that she doesn't know what she is talking about. As we can see from the article on China, it's not exactly a musician's paradise.
Yes, the music industry is full of inequities. The inequity is that the artists are getting screwed and the RIAA isn't. Piracy merely ensures that everyone gets equally screwed.
-a
potential differences (Score:5, Interesting)
Chinese people might be free to copy and share music they enjoy with their friends? Unless it's political, then they shoot you and the band. Here they just put you in jail. How's that for killed dead?
Someone in China was complaining about having to work so hard? Say it ain't so! ''In China, we have to give so many concerts that we do not have time to rest our voices.'' It must be true.
My fingers are sore, and so are my sides.
Re:China's artists not receiving royalties (Score:2, Interesting)
Keyword rockstar lifestyle. If you really think about it, it is probably about time the economy stoped rewarding stupidity, and start giving money to better things like technological development and not people who snort lines of ants and sing. Just my 2 cents.
The article. (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Pop stars learn to live with pirates
Thomas Crampton/IHT International Herald Tribune
Friday, February 21, 2003
SHANGHAI Dimpled good looks and saccharin-sweet love songs may have made him an idol to millions of teenagers in China, but dark passions emerged at an album-promotion party recently when Wang Lee Hom brandished a sword to slash an oversized compact disk marked with the Chinese character for "theft."
In case anyone missed the point, the normally demure Wang announced that his favorite track on the new album was "Why," a pop-music diatribe against piracy.
"Pirates have already killed China's music industry dead," Wang said. "It frustrates my life and destroys China's creative future."
That may be an overstatement. Record companies say that what piracy has really done in China is to cause fundamental shifts in the way the country's music industry operates. It has simply forced Wang and his fellow stars to change the way they live, work and play. ''There is no income from the royalties, so artists in China record single songs for radio play instead of albums for consumers,'' said Lachie Rutherford, the president of Warner Music Asia-Pacific. ''Stars need to look elsewhere to finance the rock-star lifestyle.'' Industry executives say this reality also is beginning to draw attention in Europe and the United States, where music companies face falling revenue from compact disk sales as Internet piracy increases. ''The financial effect is the same for record companies whether people get illegal compact disks for $1 on the street in China or download a song for free from the Internet in Europe,'' said Jay Berman, chairman and chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a London-based group representing 1,500 record companies worldwide. ''Record companies everywhere find that they not only need to fight piracy, but also develop alternate revenue streams.'' Piracy -- which accounts for 95 percent of music sales in China, according to Berman's organization -- has forced multinational record companies serving the world's most populous country to abandon classic-style album contracts, drop development of formal distribution channels and eliminate any possibility of a top-40 list based on sales. ''China is the ultimate example of industrial-scale piracy and its impact,'' Berman said. ''The business model for the record industry worldwide is moving toward resembling what we see in China today.'' Alternative sources of income tapped by top Chinese stars include paid appearances, sponsorship deals and extended concert tours through the nation's vast hinterland. ''In the United States and Europe, stars have it easy if they make a hit record,'' said Han Hong, named best female artist this year at Channel V's China Music Awards, and whose renditions of Tibetan songs have become nationally popular. ''In China, we have to give so many concerts that we do not have time to rest our voices.'' To add to the concert revenue and combat piracy, Hong slashed the price of compact disks sold at her concerts to 15 yuan ($1.80), compared with 5 yuan for pirated disks and the 70 yuan that she formerly charged. ''You cannot fight piracy, so there is no point in even getting angry,'' Hong said. ''We must adapt to the environment.'' For Wang Lee Hom, that involved advertising campaigns and an intensive series of personal appearances. ''Until they pirate my body, I can rely on personal appearances,'' Wang said. ''I am forced to view albums only as a promotional tool.'' Concerts themselves have also become pure promotions, with corporate sponsors underwriting the entire cost and passing out tickets for free. Several singers usually take to the stage to maximize the revenue from sponsors. In China's mixed-up musical world, Wang considers his big break to be the day a national bottled water company, Hangzhou Wahaha Group, put his face on its products. ''They sent my face to every corner of China,'' Wang said, adding that other sponsorship deals soon followed for sneakers, sunglasses, shampoo and clothing. ''These deals support my fame, but they do not pay for my music.'' Fame may finance Wang's designer clothes, but the lack of revenue from music sales cripples record companies. ''Our survival strategy required switching to a talent-management business model,'' said Zorro Xu, managing director in China for Warner Music. ''As piracy increases in other countries, this is what record companies elsewhere may have to try.'' While classic record-company contracts are built around albums, record companies in China now sign up to manage all aspects of an artist's career. In exchange for a percentage of the earnings, the record companies arrange promotional events and negotiate product endorsements. Berman of the phonographic industry federation cited a groundbreaking deal made late last year between the British singer Robbie Williams and EMI Group PLC as an example of China-style recording contracts moving westward. The record company signed up to take a share of all profits linked to Williams's next six albums, including merchandising, touring and music sales. In China, the scramble for sponsorship often results in the pre-selling of songs to finance production costs. The hard-edged Beijing-based singer Pu Shu, for example, wrote a theme song for the launch of Windows XP. Payment for the song, ''Out of Your Window,'' covered the cost of album production, and each time he performed at Microsoft Corp.-sponsored events, Pu and Warner collected a fee. Epson Corp. selected a song by Zhou Xun, a singer and actress, to promote color printers in a deal that financed the song's music video. ''Sponsored videos and songs must not be too obviously commercial,'' said Xu said. ''They need to fit a concept and set a mood.'' Warner Music soon plans to begin a talent search for members of a five-girl band to be called Mei Mei, with the winners signed up for a two-year contract to promote M&M candy. Reliance on advertising and the inability to measure consumer response through sales figures makes it difficult for artists and record companies to determine hits. ''China's music industry is driven by institutional sponsorship instead of consumer preference,'' said Andrew Wu, head of Sony Music China. ''Piracy prevents record companies from properly reaching new consumers through in-store promotions.'' Although pirates offer an efficient means of distributing hit albums, the thousands of pirate stalls across China discourage record companies from promoting new artists. ''These stalls are poorly lit, difficult to find and mostly run by old ladies totally out of touch with modern China's music scene,'' Wu said. ''There is no way for record companies to connect with consumers in order to promote new artists.'' As a result, Wu said, there are fewer than 20 professional-quality albums produced per year in China. This lack of large-scale music production inhibits the entry of talented newcomers. ''I know I have the talent and ability,'' said Wang Jue, the son of one of China's first pop stars who studied music at the prestigious Berklee College of Music in Boston. ''Since the record companies just don't have any money to invest, I had to put up the money myself.'' Relying on investors rounded up by his mother, Wang spent 100,000 yuan promoting his album by plastering posters along a fashionable Beijing street and paying to have his song played as the hourly jingle on radio stations. Wang's rhythm-and-blues-style album, largely self-financed but released under the Warner Records label, became a radio hit thanks to the song ''Tomorrow'' and won him the award for best hit and best new artist at the Channel V China Music Awards last month. ''Not everyone can be so lucky as to have the support of a famous mother,'' Wang said. ''I just hope this album will bring enough sponsorship deals to pay for the investment from her friend.''
Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune
Re:The article. (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a group in the 80's (Sigue Sigue Sputnik [sputnikworld.com]) that sold the space between the tracks of their album to Revlon and other advertisers.
I guess this is the next step.
Re:The article. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The article. (Score:3, Funny)
Can you imagine an entire album, where each track had a commercial sponsor...
Track 1: "They Really Know How To Build 'Em (GM Tough)"
Track 2: "So Delicious (I Can't Believe Its Not Butter)"
Track 3: "No Place Like Home (With Century 21)"
etc., etc...
so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen! (Score:2, Interesting)
Recording is ultra cheap now with PC-based studios. Record your stuff, put it out on the net and make money charging for seats at a show. Let the masses decide to make you big instead of a label with deep pockets for payola.
Re:Amen! (Score:2)
Re:so what? (Score:2)
Would you find another reason to work in your field if you didn't get paid?
Re:so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, as someone who dropped out of high-school and does earn over 100k a year, I'd consider educators to be superfluous to enabling people to get jobs. As far as I can tell, the only people who are getting jobs out of education are the people who sell education.
Now I'm sure that people could try and argue that without overpaid entertainers, western business would collapse and there would be no jobs anywhere, but we all know that's not the case.
Ditto for educators, I'm sure. But you're putting words in my mouth. I never tried to make the case that the economy would collapse without highly paid entertainers. I was responding to your whine about entertainers being more highly paid than you are.
But the point here is, why should performers think they're entitled to make hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a year? Because of their "ART"? Give me a break.
Objectively, they don't get paid for their art. Believe me, you can sing all day long and not get paid for it. Brittney Spears actually gets paid for helping record companies make money for selling little plastic discs with music on them and for helping theaters fill their seats with paying customers. In other words, she gets paid because she creates value. Effectively, she's being paid as a sales rep for record companies and venue owners. Whether or not her singing is "art" or not is irrelevant. She still sell lots of product for her employers. "Entitlement" has nothing to do with it.
Sure there's lots of jobs created from their work, but a lot of jobs result from MY work.
I know. Teacher's jobs, principal's jobs, administrator's jobs, politician's jobs, etc. My tax bill tells the tale.
Sure I'd like to get paid more, but I'm under no illusions that my work is worth millions a year, why should they think that their work is? Probably just based on history.
Has nothing to do with history. When you're generating as much revenue for your employers as Brittney generates for hers, come back and tell me about it.
And that's the problem with the music industry - they want to hold on to the past - themselves as the only distribution outlet, and of course, the performers want to hold onto their multi-million dollar contracts.
Of course they do. You would, too. But as more efficient and lower cost distribution channels are created, the older ones will be obsoleted. Which is exactly the way markets are supposed to work.
Times are changing, and in the end, performers and record labels may not (as pointed out in the article about China) be able to count on historical revenues and lifestyles when planning their careers these days.
Actually, it isn't historical. The 20th century was an aberation in that regard. Before performers had the technological means to mass produce and distribute their work, they only got paid per performance. Now that they're losing their single point of control over the distribution, I expect they'll have to go back to that model. But if you're popular enough to fill the seats of a large venue, your still going to be able to make plenty of money.
In Communist China... (Score:5, Funny)
Which means that
In Capitalist America
Music pirates you!
Calling Hillary Rosen and the RIAA, we've cracked your code...
Re:In Communist China... (Score:4, Interesting)
-a
Re:In Communist China... (Score:4, Insightful)
"rockstar lifestyle" (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't fucking pay artists to fund their 'rockstar lifestyle'. I pay them to make music. If they get the intense rich/famous shit going on because they sell loads, well, that's a bonus. If they make enough to live on and keep producing, then they're with the rest of the population.
To me, that keeps what they say in their lyrics all the more relevant to me.
Re:"rockstar lifestyle" (Score:5, Insightful)
(way off topic rant sorry. ignore this post
Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
The sooner we can get some of our 'pop stars' off shore onto pirate ships the better. May I reccomend the vicinity around Bermuda as a suitable anchorage.
Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I know plenty of bands that just thrive to hear a live audience, no, they're not big and they don't have a flash Porsche but they enjoy what they do and get to pay the bills.
All pirating means is that people that expect that when they get into music that their life is sorted and they can go round smashing up hotel rooms and stuff.
Bah! They don't even usually write their own songs.
... aaah, you're breaking my heart! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think your point is excellent! It's the very same thing that leads to the bancrupty of NHL teams (too high salaries, tickets too expensive, etc.): the league is getting out of touch with the market. Who can afford 4*$100 tickets + parking and burgers to bring the family to a hockey-game? This might seem off-topic, but my point is this: a "rock-star lifestyle" is ridiculous any way you look at it. Also, why on EARTH do the Friends "actors" make ~$1M per episode?? This is what I'm talking about: overpay. Get real and be happy with a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. That's many times more than what most of us make.
Re:Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle? (Score:5, Funny)
The record companies could make much more money from this method than their current model, which is probably why they aren't doing it yet. Easier to complain than change.
Ahh yes... the miraculous money making machine. It's amazing:
-a
Re:Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle? (Score:2)
Sorry, but it really gets to me when a "band" only does their stuff for the money.
You know what bugs me? When hookers only do it for the money. I remember when they used to do it for the crack.
But seriously, what does the
-a
Re:Why do they need such a 'rock-style' lifestyle? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you sell your records at $20 a copy, you will not sell a million of them. Anymore. But if you sell your records at $10 a copy, you might. And if you sell them at $5 a copy, it's that much more likely.
So, yes, you can get paid. But in the current economic environment, the substitute goods (Economics 101 terminology) mean that you can't charge monopoly rent for it anymore. That is to say, music downloaders would rather have the convenience of an audio CD than the poor audio quality of MP3, as long as the audio CD isn't priced too high. The current price of 15 to 20 dollars is too high.
As an alternative, put out a mega-album with 2-3 CDs, a big booklet filled with lyrics, photos, art, and interesting notes. Put it all in a quality sleeve/jacket/jewel case. If the music is decent, you could probably charge 35, 40, maybe 50 dollars for it.
The days of easy money for musicians, groupies, executives, and the rest are over. Period. No more cutting a record for five weeks that makes millions. From now on, if you want to be a musician, you're going to have to work for your money.
As for the musicians who still want unlimited money, furs, diamonds, private airplanes, giant mansions, and all the illegal drugs they can inject in their ears, from now on they're going to have to work a lot harder to get all that dough.
The real winner in this will be that art form known as music.
talent? (Score:5, Funny)
Talent-management? You mean, for an artist in China to actually be successful, they have to have some form of TALENT?! Yes, I DO hope other record companies elsewhere try this, yes indeed!
In China (Score:2, Interesting)
Down with the RIAA!
In Debt? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not completely. The magic word is "recoupable." The record label gives you X amount of dollars to record your album, to hire outside players, to live on while you dedicate your life to music, etc. Usually they will say that this money is "recoupable." Recoupable how? Through record sales, mostly. Basically, whenever a record sells, the record companies takes your cut and puts it back toward your "debt."
However, this debt is not like a loan from the bank. If you end up never making enough money to pay back the full costs that you owe through record sales and the ilk, then that's it. Some guy in dark shades won't show up on your door asking you for more money, no bankruptcy, etc. The company eats the loss.
The real debt comes with long term deals. Let's say Band A records album 1. The album costs $20K to make. The band ends up making a cut of $15K on record sales. They're $5K in the hole. The record label could drop the band and just eat the $5K loss, but they tell the band that they want to do a second album (generally, the label has the option to force the band into another album or drop them at their free will). However, this time, since the band did ok last time, the label decides to spend a bigger budget on the band with hopes of a bigger return. Even though it has to eventually come out of the band's pocket, the record label will have a lot of say in how much gets spent. So Album 2 has a budget of $50K. The album goes out, the band recoups $30K back in record sales. So that's another $20K in the hole.
Since the company took an option for the second album, now they have to do a third album (options often come in pairs). They say "We're not wasting anymore money on this band than we have to since they're not recouping." They make a back-to-the-roots Album 3 with a $10K budget. The album is technically a hit. The band recoups $40K in record sales. But guess what? You still owe $5K from the first album, and $20K from Album 2. From your first hit record, you get a grand total of $5K. And now that you're a hit, the record label may not let you leave...
This starts a vicious perpetual cycle in which an artist can potentially NEVER see cash back from selling albums. If I had to personally say that there was a way to fix this system, I would say: spend less money on albums. Only sign naturally gifted talent and cultivate grassroots appeal rather than hiring talentless hack pairs-of-breasts and spending millions on their production fees. I'll bet John Mayer, who writes his own stuff and performs fairly simple music, saw some profits from his MTV hits, though I can't say for sure.
BTW, performance royalties for getting your song on the radio or performing live can never be used to recoup expenses for the album, partly because these are paid out by a different organization. This is why musicians usually need to perform to see any money for themselves. It's quite possible for a musician to make a half-decent living playing music while the label is losing money on him. If you walk up to a musician and tell him you paid to see his gig because you downloaded his music off the net, he may not be too peeved at you.
Who pays? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is certainly a different business model than the one in Europe and the US. Is it better? Perhaps: the artists still get paid and consumers get free or very cheap music. But it may have a downside. Instead of the economic power being in the hands of the people who want the music it is transfered to large corporations.
Are we just trading one set of large corporate interests (the RIAA) for another (corporate sponsors)?
Information Devaluation (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, the scenario is diminishing returns where grubby knockoff businessmen with better promotional/distribution networks get to make money off the creative people... which is pretty much exactly the same situation witht the RIAA here, except that here it's legitimized in restrictive contracts that forbid competition.
What's the main difference? With the RIAA, they have an incentive to take care of their master works (master tapes, for film, master negatives) in order to profit from them in the future. The grubby merchant on the corner could give a rat's ass about preserving art/information - he's just out to make a buck, just like those bootleg T-shirt merchants you find at sporting events, and in downtowns everywhere.
In the end, what does this mean? It means that monopolies as we know them would be broken under the Chinese scenario. It also means that the focus would be on production, rather than milking assets. It also means that assets would be worth less than they would under the current system, which might make licensing information easier (faced with making something vs. making nothing, and losing control of the material anyways, I'd think they'd choose making something.)
This poses problems in that a devaluation in the asset means you can't borrow against it (one way companies expand is to leverage their existing library to buy other properties.) If your star dies (ie, Elvis), you can't bank on that property, because of all the ripoffs that will devalue any records/products you put out. This means a big shakeout in terms of overhead - no longer can you support lawyers on staff, etc.
It also depreciates intellectual capital - if you can't bank on the performance of a particular group, then they're worth less to begin with. Instead of getting $250,000 to do a deal, they get $25,000 to do a gig. I can't decide if this means that they'll use more or less marketing to sell product in the face of all that piracy... I'd say at a certain point, they'll just cut back and go local. If that's the case, then they have nothing to lose by opening up their back catalogs, because that material is no longer competing with their big acts, because there won't be any big acts anymore.
Arrgh. Basically, if the Chinese model happens here, a shitload of people will be laid off (some for the better - ie, bloodsucking lawyers and parasitic promo/marketing people, some for the worse - ie, recording engineers and packaging people.) For that reason alone, expect both artists and the existing business interests do whatever it takes to make sure widespread COMMERCIAL piracy stays illegal. As for widespread downloading, that's another issue entirely...
Re:Information Devaluation (Score:5, Interesting)
From the CIA World Factbook 2002 - China [cia.gov]:
GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $4,300 (2001 est.)
To me, that says that piracy is probably as prevalent as it is because people simply cannot afford music at the prices they'd be with a legitimate album sales market in place. Perhaps I'm wrong - it could very well just be a social issue, stemming form differing cultures.
Here in the US, though, there are probably a number of factors for music piracy.
Price may be an issue for some. As a college student, I can't really afford to spend $20 a pop on CDs when my school is sucking me dry.
For others, downloading music may simply be a way to preview music. The radio stations play nothing but top 40 crap unless an artist pays the station to get their stuff on air. Sometimes the only way to expose yourself to new music is find it online and download it.
Still others pirate music because of a philosophical disagreement with the industry's treatment of artists - money from albums goes almost entirely to the labels. If we want to support our favorite bands, we would be better off going to concerts.
On top of this, typical record contracts state that the label owns the music. To me, this is a travesty, and totally contradictory of the whole point of intellectual property and copyright. Who was the most successful band in history? The Beatles. Who owns the rights to all the music produced by The Beatles? The Beatles? No. Why not? Their contract gave the rights to their label, and when the copyright came up for renewal, someone else (Michael Jackson) renewed it. Personally, this part bothers me the most.
Many artists get stuck in contracts that give ownership of their music to their label, and if they wish to perform their music after their contract expires, they have to pay their old label to do it(assuming the label even allows them to play it). However, this isn't limited to the music industry, and the rant is best saved for a "why copyright law needs to be gutted and rewritten" topic.
Other people dislike how the record labels treat music consumers. Price fixing, filler music, bogus copy protection schemes, DMCA, DRM, and to top it all off, big, rich executives telling me how, when, and where I can listen to music I bought... doesn't make me think fondly upon the prospect of supporting the music industry. It seems that with every RIAA-related press release, I find myself more determined never to buy CDs again.
In spite of all this, though... I genuinely want to pay for the music I have, so long as I could guarantee that the artists get a decent share of the money. I like the feel of owning things, and I like the feel of giving money to people who make things I like to use. I would imagine many people feel like I do. As a result, I can't really see the Chinese model happening here. There's a certain pride embedded in the idea of owning something in our particular culture. Instead of seeing pirate booths lining the streets, I can forsee labels finally getting the clue and changing how they sell their music or the artists breaking free of labels and finding a better way to distribute music...
...that, or the RIAA/MPAA will successfully lobby Congress to enact further legislation that effectively limits our consumption of intellectual property to what the RIAA and MPAA want us to consume. If (when) that happens, I'll start practicing my "eh?" and move north.
Re:Information Devaluation (Score:2)
I wanted to add one possibility. Your discussion assumed that all artists are immediately mass=pirated... which seems unlikely to me. It seems fore likely that an artist is likely to be pirated in proportion to their popularity. A mass pirate may not even notice a starting artist that's able to produce and sell 1000-2000 CDs, and even if they do, it may not be worth it to them to try and compete with the legitimate product offering. As a musician ramps up to 10000 CDs, notice is still something of a problem, but economically, piracy may begin to be worthwhile. However, it's still possible that a real economy of scale would have yet to kick in here, and it's probable at this point that said artist is still driving sales largely through personal performances and distribution outlets with which they have personal contacts and might not be friendly to piracy. When you move up to 20000, 50000, 100000 CDs and up, piracy is certainly going to be worthwhile.
What my theory would predict would be that the point where marginal costs and marginal returns would balance out (on recording sales only, mind you) would be somewhere in between 5000 and 20000 fans. The mass media market would probably be hurt significantly... but maybe in waves, because at it hurts, so would parasitic/pirates, unless they find exactly the right level at which to drain the mass-market host without killing it. Regional artists, or artists with marginal national fame, would find it tough to break profits on recording sales through a certain ceiling, but would find themselves with a reasonably sustainable small to mid sized business -- much the way things are now.
And breaking into national fame might become a much more emergent/chaotic phenomenon, rather than the carefully controlled steeplechase it is now.
Just a theory.
Re:Information Devaluation (Score:3, Informative)
Very good point. Public awareness of the artist would be a definite driver of sales, pirate or otherwise. For the current market in software/music, etc. in the US, I would attribute the marketing blitz that aims to sell product to everyone, regardless of need or income, for driving non-commercial piracy. The analysis for a commercial pirate, on the other hand, would be affected not only by the amount of demand, but by potential profit as well. That's why there are counterfeit copies of Microsoft Word/Windows sold in bulk with retail packaging - high profit margin.
However, if you look at the kinds of street vendors hawking CDs in China (the China model again), they'll sell you collections of everything, and anything - including stuff repackaged to look like the flavor of the week (ie, a generic Pocahantas film by a no-name studio being sold in Disney Pocahantas packaging.) Thus, it isn't inconceivable that someone may bootleg a performance that I might do at a local jazz n blues house, it might get uploaded to Kaaza, and then downloaded by a commercial pirate. From there, my performance would end up a generic track on a generic 1001 blues/jazz MP3 tracks CD, much as freeware and shareware font designers were ripped off during the early to mid nineties by so-called "shovelware" CD producers.
When your overhead and marginal cost are next to nothing, you can afford to sell CDs at such a low cost that any kind of filler helps to increase marginal value. In that case, I'd be surprised if some enterprising soul didn't take to making compilation CDs of MP3s of whatever he could get his hands on (popular acts or unknowns), especially for bandwidth challenged folks.
Basically it boils down to the fact that any public exposure creates the possiblity of recording and distribution that you have no control over. In that situation, if I'm an artist trying to promote my band, I'd make sure I uploaded my MP3s first (ie, official MP3s), with ID3 tags to make sure that when some music/film producer picks up a 1000 track MP3 cd (or DVD as the case may be), my contact info is there. I might not get compensated for the use (I know the piracy is going to happen), but I might be able to get a gig out of it at least.
Rome and greece had a simmilar system (Score:3, Insightful)
at only breif flickers in history has there been a middle class that could support the arts through small sales commerical routes. Troubadors may have made aa living but they were not stars, whose offerings were trades to others. Perhaps breifly in egypt there was a middle class. Perhaps briefly a few art centers, like venician glass makers held brief monopolies on desirabel art. but never for long.
it is only the rise of the ubquitous middle class, and a widespread media that has created the commerical conduits for art we have today. there is nothing to suggest these channels should or will be enduring. We as a generation or two grew up and thought these the norm but we were wrong.
To the extent that artistis are conduits of expression and the exchange of ideas, is this good or bad? its not clear. there are commmercial forces to tow the political norm on all artists whether they have patrons or must please the masses. Indeed one might claim that given the financial independence offerec by a patron is what frees the artist to challenge popular norms. You would not see many commercial artist these days advocating buttfucking small boys, but certainly many poets in greece spoke well of the idea. I know thats a bit gross, but I say it to make the point that stong ideas can come about when you dont have to please everyone.
Re:Rome and greece had a simmilar system (Score:4, Interesting)
Many seem to fear that a model like what is happening in China strengthens Corporatism because they would likely be the most common patrons. So we would end up with all 5 girl groups called "Mei Mei" performing songs which extoll the virtues of M&M candy. But don't we already have that? Look at Britney Spears and the Pepsi commercials. But patronage isn't the only way to make money under a free distribution system. Endorsements would be another way. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods didn't get rich by being sponsered to play sports. In the same way, popular musical artists could become fabulously wealthy.
I think true artists, even the starving ones, can survive under such a system but they need something in return for the loose distribution of their works, if nothing else then at least name recognition. What if an electronic signature could be worked into the data format not to use for restriction but for positive identification. If free distribution were allowed then consumers would have no reason to strip that information off. This header could contain copyright, license, and contact info, the date of the performance, and the names of the patrons who paid for the performance thus freeing it for everyone.
PS. In regards to your sig, in Fascism the government controls industry but in Corporatism government is controlled by industry.
Re:Who pays? (Score:2)
In a lot of ways, though not currently in music, it actually gives the consumer a much better deal than what they get in the United States. Look at NASCAR, for instance. The cars are covered in advertising, the drivers are covered in advertising, the announcers are spewing advertising, the broadcast rights are bought by a cable channel and contain not only commercials but also sponsorships from whoever pays the most money, etc. But yet, are the tickets to the events free? Is the food and merchandise at the events priced reasonably? Hell no. The consumer pays far more than a fair price and still has to deal with all of the annoyances of corporate subsidization, because two business models are more profitable than one.
Re:Who pays? (Score:2)
So Pepsi sponsors my single. They cover the recording costs, and I agree to putting a "brought to you by Pepsi" label in the upper corner. Now we aren't talking about "power." We're transacting a simple business deal. A bit of private "product placement" as it were.
Now I sell the disks, or even *give them away,* not for profit, but as a *promotional item,* like free t-shirts or ball point pens, to promote my concerts.
Now, I'll put on a full show for you in your living room if you want. A thousand bucks plus traveling expenses. Invite all your buddys. Get 100 buddies to chip in ten bucks apiece and you're covered.
I make a good living. You get my recordings for little or nothing, and the question of "power" never comes up.
By the way, I'm noted for putting on a fun show. Call me if you're into acoustic folk oriented stuff.
KFG
Re:Who pays? (Score:2)
However, with the current state of technology, internet radio is becoming entirely viable as a mass-market revenue stream. This means that there will be just as much choice as with file-sharing (they can offer and support hundreds of channels and still advertise on all of them), while the artists get paid regularly.
The next problem is to figure out how to get people not to switch immediately at commercial.
Re:Who pays? (Score:2)
Music as marketing (Score:4, Interesting)
The worring thing is the vision of a future of excessivly maketed pop drones designed to build a valuble brand...oh, wait...
This is really telling (Score:2, Interesting)
''Stars need to look elsewhere to finance the rock-star lifestyle.''
Everyone who claims that they are pirating music "because its good for the artists" had better consider carefully the consequences. Sure, the extravagance of some pop stars may lead some with a Marxist bent to argue that they don't "deserve" their wealth, but the fact is that in a market economy, merit is rewarded with wealth, and the motive for any person to work hard is the possibility of this reward. This article is very clear: Unchecked and tolerated copyright violation destroys most of the market for recording music.
People who constantly argue that "record companies should adapt their business model to piracy" are missing the point. They shouldn't have to: It's their intellectual property, not yours, and they have every right to dictate the terms of its distribution under existing law in every civilized country, even in Red China. Right now Americans enjoy much more freedom to innovate and achieve their own dreams then those in Communist China, and mainly it is because of impartial and fair laws which promote respect for private property, including intellectual property, and allow markets to function. But if we allow these laws to be desecrated, we could fast backslide into a world like that envisioned by the Soviet commisars, where wealth is stolen from those who are capable and worthy and forcibly redistributed to the benefity of the lazy and dishonest.
Re:This is really telling (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the truly mega-super stars are rich. Most other bands are not multi-millionaires. Most are probably still in debt after having 2 "hit" records. The ones that are getting rich are the music company execs. In a true markey economy, it would be the musicians that would be making the money since they can set up a direct marketing system and buy airtime at radio stations, etc. However, the current system is not even close to a true market economy.
The IP shouldn't even be the property of the record companies. Shouldn't the IP reside with the artists who wrote the lyrics and who wrote the melodies? Singers and other musicians, who only play other people's songs, are more like employees than artists. At least the Chinese "system" makes these people work for a living, just like everyone else. Wang Lee Hom, in the article, sounds like he does everything himself from song writing to promotion. He also doesn't seem to be starving, either.
The article itself was basically very pro-RIAA. It would be nice to know how hard is it to "break into" the Chinese system as compared to the already-industry controlled system in the U.S and Europe.
Anthony
In so many ways you are wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is really telling (Score:3, Insightful)
No. They shouldn't.
The proof of this is precisely because they have no control over independent duplication, nor can they ever reasonably expect to obtain that control.
Consider: Oxygen is a valuable commodity. Indeed, you cannot live without it. Oxygen is exuded from plants every day, including those in your garden. Now, given that there are significant, measurable costs to tending and maintaining your garden, and given that the oxygen it produces has clear market value, shouldn't you be able to charge for it? Aren't those who have received value from the oxygen you produced morally and ethically obliged to stuff money into your wallet? (Or, to take it to more absurd extremes: If Bill Gates bought the entire Amazon rainforest, could he legitimately start billing the world for the oxygen it produces?)
The answer, of course, is a big fat "no," because that's not how reality works. Anyone forming a business model based on this presumption would -- correctly -- be laughed into bankruptcy.
The reality of digital media is that it is easily and cheaply duplicated by anyone, anywhere, any time. It was designed to do this, making it a feature, not a bug, and, despite Micros~1's ambitions with Palladium, it's not going to change any time soon. This reality of digital media has never been a secret -- indeed, it's one of its big selling points -- and for media executives to whine shrilly about it speaks less toward their business acumen and more forcefully toward their stubborn unwillingness to face facts.
Schwab
Full of rage, and pissed of at that coward. (Score:3, Insightful)
You spoiled son of a bitch...
Yeah, mod me down I can take the karma hit, I want the karma hit. Anonymous cowards piss me off. And that one got modded UP for this nausiating trolling...I'm hoping that the modding down will come from the same moderators that upped that twisted fuck's post.
Fair and impartial? How drunk are you? The DMCA is fair and impartial? The tax cuts for the disgustingly rich are fair and impartial?
the Soviet commisars, where wealth is stolen from those who are capable and worthy and forcibly redistributed to the benefity of the lazy and dishonest.
You arrogant bastard.
You lying, dishonest, hypocrite! I'm choking on my own rage here!
Yeah, Lance Bass deserves his millions of dollars more than the men, women and children who worked 10h days in sweat shops to make his shoes! They are so damn lazy! Working themselves to death just so they can scrounge enough money to keep their children barely fed and clothes! How dare they not pay as much as his highness demands for his crappy music?
I'll be modded down as troll or flamebait for loosing my temper, but fuck it. I would jam dollar bills down your throat until you choked if I ever got the chance. You don't deserve the air you breath if you're going to pollut it so when you talk.
Someone needs to show you true pain and suffering, to get you out of your ivory tower and make you smell the sweat and the blood that the poor have to shed to make people like you so damn comfy.
Sure, the extravagance of some pop stars may lead some with a Marxist bent to argue that they don't "deserve" their wealth
Call me names all you want (Marxist? I do have a goatee...) but britney spears does NOT deserve her money. She works hard? Well so do many other whores, and they don't make as much money as her! Sure she got a better deal (duh!), all she does is tease the Johns and they give her cash without her ever needing to deliver the goods. Most other whores don't get that chance; they do it the old fashioned way. Her pimp is better than most pimps, but he doesn't deserve his cash anymore than that little bra stuffer does.
Are you so totally devoid of basic human decency that you really think that Ozzy deserves his wealth more than any other burned out drug addict with a bit of musical talent? You think that most LSD horror story deserve to slowy rot while their unemployability prevents them from earning a living, but that one married into money (he did, Sharon's dad was quite wealthy), so he deserves it?
he fact is that in a market economy, merit is rewarded with wealth
FUCK YOU
What kind of god-given bullshit are you using to justify that insane bit of rationalisation?
99% of people with money never did anything to merit that money, they were born with it. No, being born into money does not merit immense wealth.
The french had it right in 1789: Cut off their heads.
The very rich do NOT deserve or merit their wealth. They kill and lie and cheat to get it. They get liposuctions while other starves.
They
make
me
sick.
No, I'm no red commie, I don't think that a bureaucracy would be better equipped to manage the mind-boggling riches that vast industrial nations can generate, yes, I enjoy freedoms. Including freedom to earn and spend varying amounts of money. Yes, some people are lazy, and some are freeloaders...but povrety and lazyness are VERY DISTINC ISSUES. Don't you DARE tell me that there are no rich freeloaders out there...don't you dare.
merit is rewarded with wealth, and the motive for any person to work hard is the possibility of this reward.
You disgust me.
No, no and no. I have done very hard work in the past for the sole purpose of benefiting others. I give my time to charities, I volunteer and do hard work, not only for money (gotta eat, gotta work to get the money to eat), but also to help my fellow human beings. Why? Because I know I'm incredibly lucky to have been born in a rich country where its possible to do hard work for good money, and I want to be at least a tad helpfull to others who might be doing hard work for bad money...or for good. I just like to help people (and unlike you, I don't mind if I get nothing in return, a good action is its own reward...sometimes).
Money can be a great motivator, but to worthwhile persons it is not the only one. To sleezy jerks like you it is, but I don't think of people with such low morals as yours as human. More like meatbags (spoiled meat).
Lazy people might have gotten that way by being born in a world where no matter how hard you try, you'll never get out of the hole you're in. Maybe they got a learning disability and never got diagnosed because the fucking bastard of a doctor wouldn't see him without first seeing the green stuff? Maybe? Huh? Maybe a billion other stories like that...
Oh what a horrible future... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really look at the article all you really get out of it is that some artists expect to make a few hit songs and be able to live in luxury for the rest of their years off the millions they supposedly make. Whenever I hear artists complain about how they are suffering from the effects of piracy, I just laugh. They are making lots of money doing something they supposedly love to do and they get made when they aren't making millions?
Re:Oh what a horrible future... (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, this is an extrememe "worst-case" scenario; I'd really like to see what the music industry in China was like before piracy was rampant, like pre-cd.
Our system is broken, and the RIAA is evil; but this one is worse. The answer isn't to download all those mp3's of the 8 Mile soundtrack, reassuring yourself that it's ok cuz you're sticking it to the man. The point is, fuck Eminem, Brittany, and major label music in general. Expand your tastes and buy something you didn't hear about on the tv. Something local. Something original.
Those are the people getting screwed over, doing what they love and not making millions, making good music no one will ever hear because the singer wasn't in this years big action movie.
Re:Oh what a horrible future... (Score:2, Interesting)
However, the best way for different, original music to be promoted is the use of music-sharing over the internet. I mean, new bands can't just produce a CD and if they can use the internet to promote their band they have a better chance of being noticed.
What I would like to see is a regulated form of internet file-sharing where people can easily find new bands and try out their music. I mean, I am more likely to buy a CD if I know what the rest of the CD is like.
Re:Oh what a horrible future... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really look at the article all you really get out of it is that some artists expect to make a few hit songs and be able to live in luxury for the rest of their years off the millions they supposedly make.
Aren't the majority of China's people considered to be living at poverty level? Has it occurred to anyone over there that music might be a considered a luxury item? When you have a choice between your rent and a music CD, what do you pick? Or better yet, what if you can pay your rent and afford a lower-quality knock-off CD of the music you like? Maybe lowering the price of music is something they should have done a long time ago. Now, everyone is used to buying the music from the "black market" and, too late, the industry is complaining about "piracy" hurting sales.
Sounds more like they were priced out of the market by a competing distributor (the article mentioned "little old ladies") that had a cheaper distribution method. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the US industry could increase CD sales by simply cutting in half the cost of the CD's and utilizing the distributed networks as a way to promote artists. Geez, that's already happening. They are just too blinded by their greed to notice.
The RIAA needs to go back to "Economics 101" and remember that the consumer is only willing to pay so much for a CD - especially if there is another more affordable way to get songs.
blue
Examination of piracy in general (Score:5, Interesting)
This article deals mainly with music theft, but in reality, all manner of digital information is finding ways to slip through industry fingers as media becomes cheaper and the internet becomes popular.
I once spoke to a Russian programmer on Odigo who claimed that he had never met anyone in Russia who had paid for windows; according to him, all copies he had ever seen were pirated.
Though I don't have anyone to bear testimony, a similar trend seems to be occuring in China as well. Not too long ago I remember an article posted right here on /. about Microsoft offering the Chinese government large sums of money to use Microsoft products (primarily in eduction, I believe) as well as attempt to crack down on high levels of piracy. Did China ever accept that money; was the deal even real? Though I never heard the end of that tale, the "Chinese government officially adopts linux" announcement came, ironically, shortly thereafter.
The bottom line is that people just won't pay for something if they can get it for free, be it software, music, or what have you. While piracy is not as blatant in America (ie you can't just walk into your local supermarket and buy pirated Windows CDs), the problem continues to escalate.
However, there is economic light being shed on the subject. As the article points out, it isn't destroying musicians, but just changing the way they operate. As record sales decline, artists need new sources for revenue (god forbid anyone should have to go out and actually play their music).
In software, there have always been little tricks to combat piracy, but they don't always work as well as intended. I believe that the software industry will be hurt by, and therefore change more drastically as a result of, piracy more so than the music industry.
The real question is, what changes are going to come about as a result of this fact? To me, only time will reveal the answer.
Re:Examination of piracy in general (Score:4, Interesting)
You only read what you wanted to. The article explicitly states, that piracy is in fact destroying musicians. According to this very article no more than twenty albums are professionally produced in China per year. One of the artists interviewed for this article states, that he was only able to 'make' it because he has a rich and famous mother helping him to produce and promote his first album.
It is true that some artists make their living, because they can use their popularity to secure corporate sponsorship deals. Their only other source of possible income is to tour all year, or to quote from the article: "In China, we have to give so many concerts that we do not have time to rest our voices."
The problem is, that new artist have no way to get their music to any kind of big audience. They can't get an album produced, therefore they can't get on the radio and therefore they can't get the popularity needed to register on the radar of corporations. If that is the future of music I'm starting to feel sick.
Re:Examination of piracy in general (Score:3, Informative)
Bullsh*t. Of course they will. If it is inexpensive, convinient and provides incentives to purchase. I know this example has been beaten to death, but what about bottled water industry? They are doing fine, though water is availble... *gasp*... in every house for free. Actually, strike "inexpensive" from my previous list. I am paying anywhere from $1 to $2 for a regular small bottle of water. People will buy a product if it is convinient and provides incentives to purchase it.
Re:Examination of piracy in general (Score:2)
Re:Examination of piracy in general (Score:2)
> tap water is free.
In canada tap water IS free
How about (Score:2)
Article summary and comparison to US system (Score:5, Funny)
- keep all of the money and give none to the artist
- have an efficient distribution system, but one that does not promote enough new talent
- make it so that the musicians have to make most of their money by concerts and commercial sponsorships.
This is clearly not fair. In the United States, artists are protected by the member companies of the RIAA, whoyo.
Re:Article summary and comparison to US system (Score:2)
Re:Article summary and comparison to US system (Score:3, Insightful)
You left out one bit though. At least in the United States the consumer takes it up the backside. So we've got that going for us at least.
KFG
Re:Article summary and comparison to US system (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, to translate it into a well-known aphorism:
"Under Communism, man exploits man. Under Capitalism, it's the other way around."
Schwab
Re:I agree... (Score:2)
Re:I agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
Counterpoint: Bruce Springsteen's "Nebraska" is considered one of the most important and influential records of the 1980s, and was recorded by himself on a portable 4-track in his basement.
Music One Thing, Software Another (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you talk to the developers of those projects, you'll find that the only reason they don't pirate their solution themselves is because you can't use the same software in more than one place. If you think about that, it means the software industry is highly inefficient. If you purposely have to make things non-reusable, then it is guaranteed to be less valuable and require more resources to operate in China. (Of course, labor is cheaper, but that's a separate topic.)
Of course, I also think it's pretty unfair that pop stars have to work so much harder than they really should just to survive. There's a reason pop icons over there tend to be singers, actors/actresses, spokespeople, and even porn stars all at the same time.
Re:Music One Thing, Software Another (Score:2, Insightful)
Excuse me while I laugh.
For the money a 'pop star' makes in one year, a dozen families could 'survive' for decades, if not longer.
Survive. Hah, that's a good one.
Don't celebrate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't celebrate (Score:2)
There is nothing stopping Chinese businesses from ripping off GNOME, Mono, RedHat, Debian, Apache, etc and selling proprietary versions.
If some Chinese guy can make money selling software that is otherwise free, more power to him!.
Re:Don't celebrate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't celebrate (Score:4, Insightful)
This happens all the time in China; whenever one person has an even marginally successful idea, many many other people will do the same thing and nobody ends up making any money off of it. Pretty much every big and/or profitable Chinese company has either
- excellent political connections,
- a massive industrial plant, or
- lots of foreign partners
(or some combination of these three); innovation alone, be it in software or restaurant management or just about anything else, is never enough to make a successful business venture in China, and an easily-copied innovation like a proprietary RedHat knockoff is even less likely to turn a profit.Musical Diversity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Musical Diversity (Score:3, Interesting)
-a
Re:Musical Diversity (Score:5, Insightful)
get your ass out to your local bars and clubs, and support local music!!!
Re:Musical Diversity (Score:2)
dude, all the really great music comes from indie artists anyway. i can't remember the last time i bought a CD from major record label.
get your ass out to your local bars and clubs, and support local music!!!
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but mine is different. I like highly-produced, virtuoso music, and I'm not much for concerts because it aggravates my tinitus. Very few of the bands I like ever tour where I live.
So these bands have very little chance of getting money from me via concerts. However, I don't support piracy so I will buy their CDs if they are reasonably priced (by my standards $20). If they want to make more money, they can skip the middleman and sell me the CD directly from their website (or let me download it).
-a
Re:Musical Diversity (Score:3, Interesting)
Being different in China is a liability. Few youth subcultures around, and even the ones that do exist (the Beijing rock scene springs to mind) are all different in exactly the same way (and suck in the same way. Seriously.). "Let's all be individuals by doing the same thing!" is the cry going out across the continent.
And meanwhile in Japan this year, hoards of teenagers are dying their hair bright orange and wearing all orange clothes, all trying to rebel by doing the same thing at the same time. Fucking hopeless.
Pop is not all of music (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't give a rat's behind whether or not the latest Devo album cost $2 or $20. But I do care if the music industry and where it is headed is going to make it impossible for me to get a DVD-Audio recording of the works of somebody who actualy making a real contribution music.
The prediction that the music industry is heading towards the current situation in China does not please me at all.
What exactly are you saying about Devo? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that Devo isn't contributing to our musical heritage? Or were you just saying that you'd be willing to pay any sum for their new album? Or perhaps you meant that their contributions are more literary than musical. That I could understand.
I'm a speed racer and I drive real fast;
I drive real fast - I'm going to last.
I'm a pirate and a like to kill.
I like to steal, so here's your bill.
it isn't just music.... (Score:4, Informative)
Western record producers can gripe about piracy all they want, but it is simply a fact of life in China, and not just in music. A friend recently gave me a VCD of "Hero" - the new Zhang Yimou / Jet Li film. It is clearly a pirated copy, but is so visually stunning I plan to see it in theaters when I hit Beijing in two weeks (I don't know when it is scheduled to be released here....).
Realistically though, until someone explains to me why Chinese popular music is BETTER in quality and inventiveness than the stuff being played on MTV, I'll remain suspicious of arguments that tight copyright controls provide for better end-products.
p.s. Anyone hunting for good Chinese music should definitely check out Cui Jian. There was a really good documentary on China on PBS about a week ago that can be viewed here [pbs.org]. It has a pretty decent soundtrack as well.
Cheap shot (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a pretty cheap shot and consistent with the music industries tendency to blame all their woes on downloaded music. Personally, I often "download a song for free" but if I like it, I buy it (although I know not everyone does). I doubt very much the Chinese buying pirated CDs then go and buy the genuine CD.
Great quote in article (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, I wonder about the 'intensive persnal appearances' this artist mentions. (Insert your own Natalie Portman jokes about the 'pirate my body' part).
"For Wang Lee Hom, that involved advertising campaigns and an intensive series of personal appearances.
"Until they pirate my body, I can rely on personal appearances," Wang said. "I am forced to view albums only as a promotional tool."
Boo hoo hoo (Score:2)
Some economic facts about China (Score:2)
Poverty is the real source of piracy - furthermore bussiness strategies that work for people making 2$ a day will very likely not work for people making a 100$ a day and viceversa.
China is extreme. (Score:2)
At the same time the damn RIAA needs to take a clue before stuff gets that bad over here. Gouge 19 dollars a CD? Don't think there is no alternative. I'd buy, if they were fairly priced, and I doubt I'm alone.
Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
And the music just gets worse. There hasn't been much original music released since Nirvana and the Smashing Pumpkins broke in the early 1990s. It's not because the artists suck. It's because the record companies only invest in sugar-pop acts that are too watered down to be interesting. Is there a band that has artistic ingenuity or a political point? They won't get a contract, because the record company won't take a risk.
I'd pay about a dollar per song for a CD today. If I could find one I was interested in.
The whole music thing is overrated anyway. It's all just entertainment. In the end, you can get too much entertainment.
The big record companies have dug themselves into a deep hole. They're too big to release innovative or strongly artistic acts. They're too large and bulky to move nimbly. The giants are going to fall. Both music and art in general will be better for it.
Re:Reality (Score:2)
The simple fact is, the artists aren't giving me anything I feel is worth spending my money on!
The other fact is, the Internet and all the recent alternative ways to listen to new music (XM Radio, the music played on satellite and digital cable TV, organized by format on seperate "music only" channels, etc.) are starting to make the idea of the "album" obsolete.
I'm interested in individual songs I hear that I like. The whole idea of selling music by the "12 pack" of songs recorded by one artist at the same time is not really so attractive, unless the artist really puts out a lot of top-notch material on said album/CD/cassette.
In the past, people just bought albums because that was the only way to get the song(s) they liked. (Well, that or buy singles, which many people do and have done.... But then you have this annoying piece of physical media that only plays a few minutes of music, and has to be ejected/removed from your player. Annoying!)
Re:Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I supposed to feel sorry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I supposed to feel sorry? Since when is it news that musicians, for the most part, have always been largely poor? It's those "posers" and "fakes" that somehow strike it rich are now bitching. They've been a part of the "corporate pop" machines for so long that they've forgotten what it meant to be creative in the first place. They've been given songs to sing and now get paid to sing a song that someone else wrote just because teens these days need to hear a new song from the same old cookie-cutter pop star.
Let's get real people. Music is good this way, honestly. We want to be able to choose for ourselves who is and who isn't "in". I'm tired of the radios force-feeding me the same old shit. I want something new, fresh, or maybe not-so fresh. Something raw but honest is way better than a "polished" whore/hottie who can sing. It's about time the fans demanded honesty in a musician's musical expression. After all, music isn't about honesty, it's about one's unique interpretation of a song, genre, or otherwise. Music is about allowing those who truly love it to choose what they love. The musician is the one who must also love music enough to effectively stress how much appreciation he or she has for music. Let us all live well together and with music, we can all continue our sanity.
Eminem (Score:2)
Warner Music soon plans to begin a talent search for members of a five-girl band to be called Mei Mei, with the winners signed up for a two-year contract to promote M&M candy.
The corporate sponsorship trend has already started here. M&M has already found their North American spokesman. It's all subliminal, baby.
-a
So who's read Idoru? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all the record companies out there, do any of them have the wherewithal to really skirt the problem? Specifically, do you think anyone will actually start to work towards a virtual star?
It's certainly not inconceivable now. You hire (on salary) an actor to provide a body-motion template for the mocap; you also hire (salaried) vocalists and songwriters to provide the music. Never let any of these people meet, keep their contracts separate. Real human backing bands are easy enough to hire. Also get yourself a floor full of Dicreet Logic stuff, and a fully outfitted music video soundstage, and you could basically render yourself a rock star.
It's funny - we talk about how backwards and tech-challenged the record companies are, because they cannot deal with the likes of P2P... it's almost inconceivable to imagine one of them taking the initiative like this. Well, one of the old ones, anyways....
Re:So who's read Idoru? (Score:2)
Rich Man, Poor Man... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Grateful Dead Model (Score:4, Interesting)
Shocking failiure (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result, Wu said, there are fewer than 20 professional-quality albums produced per year in China. This lack of large-scale music production inhibits the entry of talented newcomers.
Unbelievable! Granted China is a poor country, but with their population they must have millions of talented musicians. Yet only 20 professional albums are produced per year. I can't think of a sadder commentary on the effects of universal piracy. Let's hope we don't end up in the same state here in the West.
Re:Shocking failiure (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much all [thewaxmuseum.bc.ca] of [deerandbird.com] my [vitvitrecords.com] favourite [salon.com] albums [krecs.com] from [thefiresideroom.com] the [corblundband.com] last [oldreliableband.com] year [justconcerts.com] were produced well by talented producers [hivestudios.net], and released on labels [scratchrecords.com] run by people who care about music [deerandbird.com]. More importantly, I've seen all the bands multiple times in great intimate venues.
I don't know if any of these acts will ever be well-known by anyone outside of Vancouver/Edmonton and area, but so what? Why should music be national? Why is that even important to people? There are hundreds of amazingly talented people in every city who could work on music full-time if more than a couple of thousand people cared to listen to something produced for the love of it and the love of doing something new rather than some celebrity death-wish.
The whole notion of national celebrities is one of the strangest consequences of copyright law and if we lost it I'm convinced we'd be ther better for it. Having the state sponser monopolies by restricting speech, funnelling money into cartels and creating the celebrity-class is at best bizzarre, at worst it's seriously fucked.
"music industry" a misnomer (Score:4, Insightful)
Faye Wong (Score:2, Informative)
karma strikes (Score:3, Insightful)
When they (recording industry) continue to make ever-unreasonable demands on us (the consumers) how much longer do they think we will put up with it? Just like open source, the will of the masses will become reality.
It's sad that in the China example, artists again get the shaft by the recording companies, blamed on 'pirates' (or is that terrorist? I'm no longer certain.)
Everyone on
TAking lessons from China? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i'm sure the pirates know who's popular (Score:3, Informative)
But yes, the factories churning out CD's most definitely do know what's popular, and the agents who keep the stands with the old ladies stocked have a pretty good idea about it too. That part of the article is a mischaracterization, anyway; a lot of the sellers now are young men from the countryside who may not have a spectacularly strong grasp of popular music but who do at least pay attention to what sells and what doesn't. (half the time they'll be competing with seven other guys for the customer's attention, and they don't want to be plugging something that she's not interested in)